CETA is Coming Are You Scared Yet

CVMA (the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association) seems happy with the deal:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/cvma-congratulates-government-on-completion-of-ceta-legal-review-570535911.html

Quote:

"The CETA agreement reflects the hard work of the Canadian negotiating team to ensure outcomes that are supportive of Canada's automotive manufacturing sector," stated Mark Nantais, CVMA President. "We support the Government's continued progress towards ratification of this historic trade agreement."

ygtbk wrote:

Thomas Walkom assesses the new ISDS as slightly better than the old:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/02/ceta-critics-force-europe-canada-to-revise-trade-pact-walkom.html

In fact, it was much more. Under intense political pressure at home, the European side forced Canada to renegotiate a controversial part of the agreement that would allow private firms to challenge and ultimately strike down laws that might interfere with profit-making....

Critics don’t think this is enough. Maude Barlow of the Council of Canadians says the reworked pact still gives foreign companies a unique forum in which they can challenge domestic laws.

Osgoode Hall law professor Gus Van Harten .....

But he says that the changes are still insufficient to deal with a dispute resolution system that, like the one imbedded in the North American Free Trade Agreement, gives rights to companies that ordinary people don’t enjoy....

In Canada, CETA has been very much a non-issue. It is expected to raise the price of pharmaceuticals — which would put more pressure on governments (like Ontario’s) to scale back their drug-benefit programs.

It would hurt the cheese and auto industries and make it harder for provinces and municipalities to give preference to local suppliers....

Oddly enough, Canadian critics of CETA had more luck in Europe. There, politicians and interest groups were horrified by the idea of a trade regime that would allow foreign companies to override domestic environmental, animal welfare or labour laws.

Canadian anti-CETA campaigners fed this by outlining Canada’s dismal experience withNAFTA’s dispute-resolution system.

But it was the spectre of a trade deal with the U.S. that mobilized critics in Europe. If Canadian firms were allowed to challenge European law, how could the EU prevent far more powerful American companies from demanding the same right?...

The lesson for Canadian free-trade critics may be this: If you can’t get anywhere with your side, try the other guys.

Canada is the problem. Too bad we don't have a political party willing to fight investor privileges.

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Quote:

Oddly enough, Canadian critics of CETA had more luck in Europe. There, politicians and interest groups were horrified by the idea of a trade regime that would allow foreign companies to override domestic environmental, animal welfare or labour laws.

 

Canadian anti-CETA campaigners fed this by outlining Canada’s dismal experience withNAFTA’s dispute-resolution system.

Canada is the problem. Too bad we don't have a political party willing to fight investor privileges.

The public needs to be more on board.  Mulcair was one of the critics of ISDS in CETA who went to Europe and spoke with politicians and focus groups there against it, but here this caused a very hostile response from many, including the Libs and Cons, who favour ISDS.  This was in December 2014.

http://ipolitics.ca/2014/12/08/mulcair-warns-europe-against-ceta-investo...

Quote:

Mulcair told a French think tank on Sunday that the European Union shouldn’t support the deal if investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) continues to be included.

“We support trade agreements that reduce border tariffs and eliminate harmful obstacles to business,” Mulcair said in French prepared remarks, describing the party’s approach to trade as open and progressive.

That support, however, doesn’t extend to ISDS, which allows corporations to sue foreign governments outside of their courts.

“My party is therefore opposed to the inclusion of such a mechanism in the Canada-Europe agreement,” he said, noting that other governments — Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands — share their concerns, and that the Conservatives’ “blind ideological” attachment to it could jeopardize the entire agreement.

The Council of Canadians wanted the NDP to reject CETA altogether.  They were happy though that the NDP at least rejected ISDS, and noted that their position was far superior to both the Liberals and the Conservatives:

http://canadians.org/blog/mulcair-says-eu-shouldnt-support-ceta-if-inves...

Quote:

While this is undoubtedly a good move, Mulcair has yet to express his opposition to CETA itself. That said, if the NDP position is still lacking, the Conservatives and Liberals both attacked Mulcair's comments as threatening the deal.

In Canada during the election, he still spoke against it, though more cautiously given the environment here.  From the "NAFTA" link above, we see this,

Quote:

“I don’t think that international panels should be deciding issues of Canadian public health and safety and environment,” said Mulcair, adding that is one reason the NDP is urging a “critical look” at the investor-state provisions in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Europe.

At the Toronto Riding Association meeting, I had a chance to ask Mulcair about Verheul's [one of the trade negotiators] contention that a form of ISDS had to be included (link).  Verheul made this contention in response to NDP member Tracy Ramsey's suggestion of "eliminating ISDS and ICS provisions altogether [from CETA], given that investors can already seek recourse in domestic courts" at the trade committee recently.  Mulcair said it was bullshit and that the Europeans wanted a trade agreement without ISDS.  He felt it could have been done.  That's not what the Liberals wanted to do, however.  It's unfortunate the NDP weren't elected.

It's unfortuate they felt they had to hide their position because had the NDP been openly condemning of CETA I would have voted for them. The NDP cannot have it both ways and urging "a critical look" is not the same as opposing.